In the opening chapters of Dweck’s research, she makes points that are apparently backed up or proven through various observations. After a while, many of her points seem redundant, but her overlying claim refutes her knowledge of the matter. Dweck states that the school systems are more in tuned to IQ rather than to better achievement goals. On page 32, she states, “…not giving students the leeway to acclimate to new challenges, by not letting them put…” which is apparent today with the vast multiplication of knowledge (Dweck 32). Earlier on page 21, she hypothesizes, “an incremental theory, with its idea of malleable intelligence, should make students concerned with getting smarter and so should promote learning goals,” (Dweck 21).
1. Intelligence takes the front seat in all decisions. For example, Lawyers have to go through law school to get certified, while a common person can go to the local library and get the same knowledge out of books, but is looked down upon.
2. Similar to Dweck’s experience in her 6th grade class with seating by IQ, my 5th grade class was always split up during math time because some scored high on placement exams.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I either don't understand your second sentence or you used "refutes" when you meant to use a different. I also don't understand how you're defining "intelligence" in your sentence that begins with 1. I'm not sure that your comment about law school is true (do you have to go to law school to take the bar exam?) and I don't fully understand the point you are communicating with the comment. Could you explain a bit more?
Post a Comment